The IPKat

Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, designs, info-tech, privacy and confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. Read, post comments and participate!

BONJOUR FROM FRANCE

Last Wednesday the Cour d'appel de Paris found that Google had infringed Vuitton's trade marks, by selling those marks as adwords that were used by sellers of counterfeit or infringing Louis Vuitton products. The most interesting part of the decision (which has not yet been published as far as Olivier or the IPKat are aware) is the following:

In other (English) words, Google is ordered to refrain from using adwords on its websites if they are accessible in France, regardless of their top level domain extension (.com, .hk, …).

The IPKat feels somewhat anxious about the use of adwords. It's all very well to say that the sale of manufacturers' trade marks as adwords is legitimate where the purchaser is, say, a responsible and respected retailer but illegitimate where the purchaser sells fakes and infringements. However, once the adword is sold by the search engine provider without the trade mark owner being able to do anything about it, it can be difficult for him to keep monitoring the manner in which the adword is used. Merpel agrees: the problem is particularly acute where the adword user may be selling genuine products that have been sourced from both inside and outside the European Economic Area. Where does that leave us?

New French copyright law

Following a tip-off from Richard Evans (IPworldonline) the IPKat can confirm that the French Assemblée Nationale passed a new copyright law on Friday. This law, the so-called 'iTunes law', is intended to force Apple to make its iPod music player and iTunes online store compatible with rivals' offerings. According to Business Week Online, songs bought on iTunes can be played only on iPods and an iPod can't play downloads from other stores that rival the extensive iTunes music catalogue from major artists and labels - like Sony Corp.'s Connect and Napster.

The constitutionality of the new law has been challenged by opposition Socialists and Greens and it will not come into force after that challenge is exhausted. Less controversially, the French law also introduces new penalties for a range of online piracy offences: up tthree years in prison and a 300,000 euro fine for knowingly offering or advertising a download service for pirated music or videos.

Below: how the French like their apples - golden delicious ...

The IPKat is surprised at the French initiative and wonders what impact it will make - if it is held valid - upon the single European market for music downloads. Merpel says, I'm surprised too that this has slipped by as a unique national initiative and not as emanating from the European Commission: it shows that, even now, it's not too late for EU member states to call the legislative shots. And if France is right to do this, shouldn't all other member states follow suit?

1 comment:

Following the logic of the French law requiring iPod-like devices to be able to play "standard" mp3 tunes, can we look forward to computer printers being required to use "standard" printer cartridges rather than proprietary ones? Or how about mobile phones accepting only proprietary batteries?

If Apple want to enter the music downloading business and consider that in order to avoid copyright problems they need to develop their own proprietary player to stop copying, why should they not be able to sell a device which only plays iTunes? My take on the French law is that it is simply an anti-US measure.

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.